As much as I would like to moderate myself for the audience that I am speaking to involving the issue of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in general, I cannot truly do that without betraying what my clear opinion on the manner is. I believe that forces such as disability advocate groups and the Catholic Church, though I can see that they both have relevant arguments involving euthanasia, are wrong to oppose it. I find myself siding with Dr. Kevorkian and the several terminally ill patients who have embraced and been part of the recent euthanasia rights movement.
First of all, before I address both sides of the argument that exist in this realm, I would like to dispel the general "allowing euthanasia will inevitably lead to Neo Nazism and encouraged/forced euthanasia of certain individuals" argument that exists within most of the groups opposed to euthanasia. This argument, also known as a slippery slope, seems to make it so that anything can lead to an aspect of the Nazi regime being imposed on modern America. An example of this misguided and intellectually dishonest way of thinking is this: during the Third Reich, many of the Nazis including Adolf Hitler himself supported a vigorous and strong anti tobacco campaign, largely spurred by the fact that German doctors were the first doctors to discover a link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. Let us then say a modern politician, such as John Boehner or George W. Bush, decides to support a strong anti tobacco campaign in the 21st century, and their opponents accuse them of being "Nazis" and using "Gestapo esque tactics" in order to keep individuals from smoking. Is comparing an anti smoking and anti tobacco campaign from the Third Reich to one of a few Republican holier-than-thou politicians a clear an accurate comparison? In my opinion, which is also the side of reason and logic, this is obviously not a fair comparison.
Speaking of holier-than-thou individuals, let us examine the "official," Catholic position on this issue. According to the papal bull that was declared by Fanjo Seper, also known as the Declaration On Euthanasia, "no one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God's love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity." This already rules out both the acts of murder and euthanasia, but has a very clear loophole within it. What if the innocent person is bed ridden, and begs for a form of active euthanasia that will ultimately end his or her life? The Catholic Church, in response to this question, posits that the suffering is not exactly a plea for euthanasia and the ending of ones own life, but "in fact it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love." So, Catholics believe that cries for the ending of one's life and Euthanasia are in fact misguided attempts at expressing a want of love.
Along with the Catholic's, disabled rights groups such as the American Association of People with Disabilities and Disabled In Action have been at the forefront of being opposed to the act of euthanasia. Individuals involved in these groups or that share opinions with these groups, such as Alison Davis, believe in the idea of the "right to life," believing that "The notion of 'non personhood' denies the right of handicapped people to be recognized as equal human beings in a caring society, and it makes a mockery of the goodwill which seemingly abounded in the International Year of Disabled People," when discussing legislation allowing doctors to withhold treatment from newborn handicapped babies. Basically, those involved in Disability right movements ultimately believe that the sort of legislation that is being passed today may lead inevitably to them being considered second class citizens, and may lead to their extermination.
On the other side of the argument lies Doctor Kevorkian and patients that have both been fighting for their right for euthanasia and those that have already participated in it. Kevorkian believes in the idea of the right to die as a fundamental right of human beings, believing less that he is ending the life of the individual and more that he is ending the suffering. Along with arguing that, by the time that he has reached his patient they already have lost their life to suffering, Kevorkian further believes that every patient that he kills should undergo a strict emotional and psychological evaluation before they can participate in such a deadly procedure, and that "doctors are cowards" because they do not admit to their support of such a controversial method of ending someone's life. Along with Kevorkian, patients who are part of physician assisted suicide are large supporters of it. Take Dan James, a former British rugby player who became paralysed during a game and decided to end his life through the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Dan's parents, commenting in the London Telegraph, said that "our son could not have been more loved and had he felt he could live is life this way he would have been loved just the same, but this was his right as a human being." Basically, like Kevorkian, Dan's parents believe that the right to die is a right that cannot be taken away by others, and is something that is to each his own as the old idiom goes.
My opinion on this matter is that the right to die is a fundamental right that every human should have. I believe that what Clint Eastwood's character did in the 2004 film Million Dollar Baby to Hilary Swank was in fact the right action to take. Swank's character, whose entire life was based around boxing, had been completely ended by a fateful punch and a stumble unto the ground that had caused her to suffer severe spinal cord injuries and end up lying in a hospital bed for the rest of her life. It seems unfair that a human being has to wait and suffer through the rest of their lives when they are past their glory days, counting down the minutes and living in anguish and horror, sometimes completely unable to recover from near fatal injuries.
Though I do agree with Dr. Kevorkian and the many patients that have chosen the route of physician assisted suicide, I also believe that a complete and comprehensive psychological and emotional evaluation of the individual should be taken before the person is allowed to commit the act that they are about to commit. I know many individuals who, if physician assisted suicide were legal, would jump on the horse of death and ride it towards the horizon of hereafter based on short term depression. If cases like these were commonplace when it comes to physician assisted suicide, and the psychological evaluations are lax and sometimes even nonexistent, I would rather have euthanasia be illegal than to see people who are choosing to commit suicide on a whim do it everyday.
I realize that the Catholics do believe that killing another human being is against God's plan, but much like Brent, isn't any interference with human beings medically against God's plan? And what about the secular nature that this country was founded on. Why is it that God should take front seat to a rational euthanasia policy, let alone be allowed in the car?
Disabled rights groups, in their argument, essentially use the slippery slope argument that I have refuted above, and ultimately are wrong in the respect that countries including Switzerland and The Netherlands have not embraced further more malicious policies regarding euthanasia.
Ultimately, I believe the right to die is an inalienable. Over time, with the shifting of power and the shift of zeitgeists and ideas, believe that it will become accepted in nearly all circles.
First of all, before I address both sides of the argument that exist in this realm, I would like to dispel the general "allowing euthanasia will inevitably lead to Neo Nazism and encouraged/forced euthanasia of certain individuals" argument that exists within most of the groups opposed to euthanasia. This argument, also known as a slippery slope, seems to make it so that anything can lead to an aspect of the Nazi regime being imposed on modern America. An example of this misguided and intellectually dishonest way of thinking is this: during the Third Reich, many of the Nazis including Adolf Hitler himself supported a vigorous and strong anti tobacco campaign, largely spurred by the fact that German doctors were the first doctors to discover a link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. Let us then say a modern politician, such as John Boehner or George W. Bush, decides to support a strong anti tobacco campaign in the 21st century, and their opponents accuse them of being "Nazis" and using "Gestapo esque tactics" in order to keep individuals from smoking. Is comparing an anti smoking and anti tobacco campaign from the Third Reich to one of a few Republican holier-than-thou politicians a clear an accurate comparison? In my opinion, which is also the side of reason and logic, this is obviously not a fair comparison.
Speaking of holier-than-thou individuals, let us examine the "official," Catholic position on this issue. According to the papal bull that was declared by Fanjo Seper, also known as the Declaration On Euthanasia, "no one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God's love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity." This already rules out both the acts of murder and euthanasia, but has a very clear loophole within it. What if the innocent person is bed ridden, and begs for a form of active euthanasia that will ultimately end his or her life? The Catholic Church, in response to this question, posits that the suffering is not exactly a plea for euthanasia and the ending of ones own life, but "in fact it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love." So, Catholics believe that cries for the ending of one's life and Euthanasia are in fact misguided attempts at expressing a want of love.
Along with the Catholic's, disabled rights groups such as the American Association of People with Disabilities and Disabled In Action have been at the forefront of being opposed to the act of euthanasia. Individuals involved in these groups or that share opinions with these groups, such as Alison Davis, believe in the idea of the "right to life," believing that "The notion of 'non personhood' denies the right of handicapped people to be recognized as equal human beings in a caring society, and it makes a mockery of the goodwill which seemingly abounded in the International Year of Disabled People," when discussing legislation allowing doctors to withhold treatment from newborn handicapped babies. Basically, those involved in Disability right movements ultimately believe that the sort of legislation that is being passed today may lead inevitably to them being considered second class citizens, and may lead to their extermination.
On the other side of the argument lies Doctor Kevorkian and patients that have both been fighting for their right for euthanasia and those that have already participated in it. Kevorkian believes in the idea of the right to die as a fundamental right of human beings, believing less that he is ending the life of the individual and more that he is ending the suffering. Along with arguing that, by the time that he has reached his patient they already have lost their life to suffering, Kevorkian further believes that every patient that he kills should undergo a strict emotional and psychological evaluation before they can participate in such a deadly procedure, and that "doctors are cowards" because they do not admit to their support of such a controversial method of ending someone's life. Along with Kevorkian, patients who are part of physician assisted suicide are large supporters of it. Take Dan James, a former British rugby player who became paralysed during a game and decided to end his life through the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Dan's parents, commenting in the London Telegraph, said that "our son could not have been more loved and had he felt he could live is life this way he would have been loved just the same, but this was his right as a human being." Basically, like Kevorkian, Dan's parents believe that the right to die is a right that cannot be taken away by others, and is something that is to each his own as the old idiom goes.
My opinion on this matter is that the right to die is a fundamental right that every human should have. I believe that what Clint Eastwood's character did in the 2004 film Million Dollar Baby to Hilary Swank was in fact the right action to take. Swank's character, whose entire life was based around boxing, had been completely ended by a fateful punch and a stumble unto the ground that had caused her to suffer severe spinal cord injuries and end up lying in a hospital bed for the rest of her life. It seems unfair that a human being has to wait and suffer through the rest of their lives when they are past their glory days, counting down the minutes and living in anguish and horror, sometimes completely unable to recover from near fatal injuries.
Though I do agree with Dr. Kevorkian and the many patients that have chosen the route of physician assisted suicide, I also believe that a complete and comprehensive psychological and emotional evaluation of the individual should be taken before the person is allowed to commit the act that they are about to commit. I know many individuals who, if physician assisted suicide were legal, would jump on the horse of death and ride it towards the horizon of hereafter based on short term depression. If cases like these were commonplace when it comes to physician assisted suicide, and the psychological evaluations are lax and sometimes even nonexistent, I would rather have euthanasia be illegal than to see people who are choosing to commit suicide on a whim do it everyday.
I realize that the Catholics do believe that killing another human being is against God's plan, but much like Brent, isn't any interference with human beings medically against God's plan? And what about the secular nature that this country was founded on. Why is it that God should take front seat to a rational euthanasia policy, let alone be allowed in the car?
Disabled rights groups, in their argument, essentially use the slippery slope argument that I have refuted above, and ultimately are wrong in the respect that countries including Switzerland and The Netherlands have not embraced further more malicious policies regarding euthanasia.
Ultimately, I believe the right to die is an inalienable. Over time, with the shifting of power and the shift of zeitgeists and ideas, believe that it will become accepted in nearly all circles.